Related Subs

When Making A Case

Definition

The original person to coin the term agnostic - a scientist by the name of Thomas Henry Huxley (also known as "Darwin's Bulldog", for his advocacy of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution) - defined it with:

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Disclaimer

There seems to be a few active intended meanings of agnosticism in circulation. If you're unfamiliar with them, read up on it here and help avoid miscommunications - http://bit.ly/OvoTfc

In my time spent on /r/agnostic I notice that most of the posts are of people trying their best to explain what they think it means to have an agnostic state of mind. So here is my attempt to convey the feeling of being agnostic and also being humorous:

So a christian, an atheist, and an agnostic walk in to a bar.
The bartender says: What do ya fancy?
The christian: I am a man of god. I will make it my goal to convert others!
Atheist: But look at this evidence! How can you ignore that? And get your religion out of my face!

The bartender is dumbfounded

Agnostic: ...uhhh, guys?

The Christian and atheist continue to argue

The agnostic looks to the bartender, shrugs, and says: Yeah I'll have a martini.
Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
Agnostic: No preference. :)

Hrm, but then leading agnostics such as Dawkins, Einstein, etc, have all been very critical of religion, all calling it childish. Not at all silent or uncritical.

Even Huxley, the inventor of the word agnostic, described his position as this:

I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

Hrm, but then leading agnostics such as Dawkins, Einstein, etc, have all been very critical of religion, all calling it childish.

Now that's not exactly accurate. Not at all. The truth about 2 of these people you have mentioned is much more complicated.

Dawkins as an agnostic? He lives and acts as if he is certain. For all intents and purposes, even if he gives lip service to some sort of admission of agnosticism, it's a pointless admission. His 6 but "close enough" to 7, is the same leap of faith a person of faith makes. Also Dawkins has gone so much farther in his criticism of people, and their faiths, than just saying "demonstrate." He is particulary abusive. That kind of abuse is born of his certainty. His actions speak as loudly as his words.

Einstein criticized the idea of a personal God as naive. He didn't criticize religion as naive. In fact he very much resented the mass indoctrination of religion, and the authority structure, as he professed that he had a marked distrust of authority since he was 12. But in other cases he made very laudatory statements about certain clergy, and he was very fond of the literature. Particulary his Catholic experience. There was no Jewish School here in Munich when he was here as a child. So he went to Catholic School. He was also self professed fan of Jesus, not as a God, certainly not, but as a man and a teacher. He called him the "luminous figure of the Nazarene."

critical, yes, but i believe those leading agnostics were critical of the church's structure. "religeon", as it is, isn't bad, it's the authoritarian, "don't question me" side fo religeon i've seen those people attack.

if alive today, i'm quite sure einstein or da vinci would say the dali lama is a source of positivity for many, asking people to question how they live their lives, something many agnostics (and atheist) do, despite religeon, not because of it.

Einstein's criticism was of the maturity of such magic beliefs, not the church's structure:

In 1945 Guy Raner, Jr. wrote a letter to Einstein, asking him if it was true that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism. Einstein replied, "I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility and beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it. And that is all."

It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies

edit: And offended at being called an atheist? He said himself that he will always be what they call an atheist, and was offended at having been said to have converted to religious thinking, which he called "childish".

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies.

He says it's misleading that they think he's an atheist. He says it is childish that they classified him as such.

Edit: and being what "they call" an atheist and actually being one is not the same. He makes it sound like they forced the title upon him. I agree that he is also offended at being falsely called religious, but that isn't what he calls childish, specifically.

By "anthropomorphical concepts" he's talking about gods, invisible humans in the sky, in the line of previous naive attempts at explaining the universe with egotistical local familiarities. (e.g. the world on the back of a turtle, the universe grown from a tree)

By outside the human sphere, he means where such traits don't apply (e.g. discussing the emotions of a planet, or the anxiety of a star).

Einstein does call belief in a personal god childish. But in the quote in saying, "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist." Is not the same as calling himself one. There are other quotes where he flat out says, "I am not an atheist."

Remember, Einstein watched the horrors of WWII. He helped the US develop its atomic program to stop it.
The conflict in him must have been great, he had a moral code and he lived by it, do not assume that a great mind contains no morals or restrictions, that is the work of Science Fiction and evil corporations.

"I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable?"

In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.

In the context that this was actually written in, you are exactly right. There are a plurality of text where Einstein declined and refused the title of Atheist for obvious reasons and said he was closer to an agnostic. Not an agnostic atheist. Just an agnostic, in the 1950's sense of the term. In this example. He is saying, a jesuit would call him an atheist. It's an ironic remark.

I'd say it's also important to state which religion/s their responses would be toward. Islam? They would probably say that the religion itself is a negative influence on humanity because of the active pursuit of harm toward "infidels" that is written in the Quran. Christianity? Very similar because of the Old Testament laws and commands that devout Christians follow. Buddhism? They would probably be more tolerant toward it because of its pursuit of peace and nirvana. Making a general statement about all religions ignores a lot of nuances of each that would elicit different responses from different "leading agnostics". Also, IIRC, Dawkins is a stout atheist, not agnostic. He argues Occam's Razor against an agnostic perspective.

Richard Dawkins has long described himself as agnostic. He even wrote about a scale of evidence which he uses which tips strongly one way, for explaining that agnosticism does not mean doing zero analysis, it just means being like a scientist in any field, where you can never gain complete proof of anything and should not expect to.

I would just like to say Buddhist can be just as bad as Christians. They believe being a homosexual is wrong and they wont be able to reach nirvana because of it. Buddhism isn't quite as tolerant and peace loving as the internet makes it out to be. Many Buddhist (coming from an understanding of Tibetan Buddhism mostly) would be described as conservative. The Dalai Lama is a great guy, but many Buddhist beliefs differ from those you see on the internet.

Yeah, all I'm saying is Buddhism is a religion with its own supernatural beliefs, and all the other short comings of other religions. Its not a philosophy like some people seem to believe. That said, I think Buddhism is one of the best religions a person could choose to follow.

There are philosophical elements to Buddhism (as with most religions) and there are some Buddhists who reject supernatural beliefs and only subscribe to the philosophy, but this is a more recent and modern thing. Sort of the equivalent to Secular Humanist Judaism or Unitarian Universalism.

Yeah, Zen is a much more chill practice. I have had two eastern religion courses. One was purely focused on Tibetan Buddhism, and the other was more general (Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto). My professor actually spent 9 years in India studying in the rebuilt monasteries. I see a lot of misinformation about Buddhism. Many of what I would call fundamentalist Buddhist are very similar to the types of Christians that annoy us. Many of the Chinese and Japanese Buddhist (Zen, Pure Land) are more accepting of other beliefs, but they aren't as peace loving as they are made out to be.

Buddhisism and homosexuality is more complicated than just saying "It's wrong" If you are trying to eliminate the craving for sense pleasures, then sex is part of that. And buddhist sexual restricitions are for all genders and orientations. Just being a homosexual is not "wrong." Although some Thai schools claim it's a result of sexual misconduct in a former life.

No, to all Buddhist homosexuality is sexual misconduct which prevents reaching nirvana. Of course a Buddhist wants to eliminate all sexual craving, but most lay people aren't very focused on reaching nirvana. Its still considered worse than heterosexual sex.

And if you have anal sex as a heterosexual you are also not going to get to Nirvana. Oral? Nope. Handjobs? Not going to happen. Rimjobs? Gross. The only sex that is ok is vanilla sex for making babies. So Heteros that do anything besides the Amish through the sheet polka / Buddha bounce are also not living right.

And it's not the gayness, it's the gay acts. And in monastic buddhism it's a non-issue, because everyone is supposed to be celibate.

Yeah I agree with you. Still in many of the cultures being gay is still considered bad. It might not totally the religion that is the cause of that, but in many places its hard to distinguish culture from religion. Also this is from a west Asian (Indian/Tibetan) perspective mostly. I know a little about east Asian Buddhism and it seems more open are these subjects.

Buddhism is one of the better religions in the world, but it still has some problems such as; women's and gay rights. It also holds on to many superstitious beliefs that just don't make sense in the modern world. All I'm trying to do is point out that Buddhism has its flaws because I see it misrepresented a lot on the internet.

I agree with you in that sense. I too am also critical of both Christians and Atheists; however, the point that I was trying to make is that agnostics lack the common aggression found in both the ideals of Christians and Atheists. More than Christians and Atheists, we believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I'm not saying that either side wouldn't agree with that statement, but agnostic-minded people typically don't contradict that belief through actions in the way that many Christians and Atheists do.

Where did you hear those prejudices (that Christians and atheists have aggressive ideals?)

Would it matter to you what religion the atheist was? For example, if the atheist were a Buddhist, would you assert that she was out to deprive you of your own opinions? What if the atheist weren't religious, would that matter? Would if matter if the atheist were agnostic or ignostic?

You seem to be typing these sweeping statements about other people, and I wonder if you're willing to defend them.

Ugh, I am definitely making it worse. Haha. I'm just saying that atheists can be overbearing when sharing their opinion as well as Christians, as what I attempted to demonstrate in my post. I don't intend to imply that Agnostics are even in the same spectrum of opinion as Christians and Atheists. Obviously this is not a subject that can be covered within a joke, but rather a 2 credit hour class. I don't want to upset anybody, but I welcome open debate for the furthering of knowledge in the matter. Cheers

Can be? Sure, people fitting the description overbearing "can be" found among atheists. It doesn't mean that it's the ideal of everyone who's an atheist to be like that. Agnostics, of course, also can be overbearing. Look at "The Great Agnostic" himself, Robert G. ingersol. He said:

The agnostic does not simply say, "l do not know." He goes another step, and he says, with great emphasis, that you do not know. He insists that you are trading on the ignorance of others, and on the fear of others. He is not satisfied with saying that you do not know, -- he demonstrates that you do not know, and he drives you from the field of fact -- he drives you from the realm of reason -- he drives you from the light, into the darkness of conjecture -- into the world of dreams and shadows, and he compels you to say, at last, that your faith has no foundation in fact.

If a Christian said he had a close personal relationship with Christ and knew 100% that God existed, an agnostic like Ingersol wouldn't smile meekly and act as if the Christian knew something that he didn't. He would attack that belief in public, and demonstrate how poorly founded it was.

Are you trying to say that Movement Atheists aren't trying to either sell something or convince someone of something. I think they are. More power to them, if that's what they want, but it's naive to imply that they aren't.

Atheist and Agnostic are not two sides of the same thing, nor are exclusive to one and other. They are words for describing two stances on two different concepts.

Secondly, as I just pointed out, many famous agnostics (including the inventor of the word) are the most historically famous people for criticizing religion (e.g. Dawkins).

we believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I'm not sure what this means. I am agnostic and don't believe anything, and I am an atheist and don't see why people shouldn't be entitled to their own opinions. If you think that means that I'm not going to audibly oppose indoctrination as was done to me, then you'd be wrong.

The quotes from Einstein, Huxley, Dawkins, etc, are quotes from some of the most influential and famous Agnostics there are - Huxley even invented the word. I'm sorry if this doesn't fit comfortably with some misconception.

The "inclination" is irrelevant.

It's not an "inclination", it's a different topic. Agnostic does not describe whether one is a theist or not, it describes one's attitude towards knowledge.

It's relevant because many do not understand the difference, that one does not preclude the other. The only reason it is needed is because of common misconception about the meanings of these latin words.

Please don't use these cheap comparisons intended to analogize that a critic is the same thing as these people. That kind of low quality bullying discourse is for people who aren't mature enough to defend their assertions and actions.

Yeah but i think they mean how religious people act is childish..believing in sonething with no proof so actually ...they also said atheism is childish...not believing something with no proof!
Just little children can't accept the fact that they don't know sonething...adults are okay with the fact that this is unknowable...

The problem here is that you don't understand what atheism means, and are using a very silly definition which gives you something to attack, but which defines nobody who actually calls themselves atheist.

Just about every atheist who discusses it will explain that they don't know, hence why most of us call ourselves agnostic atheists. Not believing doesn't mean that you believe that something isn't - for example I don't believe string theory because the evidence isn't all there yet, but I don't at all believe that it isn't true.

An atheist is a person who believes their is no god and such a thing is impossible

A theist is a person who believes their is a god and not having such a thing is impossible.

An agnostic is a person who believes that their may not be a god but then again they acknowledge that such a thing may be possible.

It is worthy of note that you can be different levels of agnostic, believing there probably is a god but your not 100% sure or that there probably isn't a god but your not 100% sure while neither a theist or atheist can hold any difference in their belief in the level of the existence of god although they can argue the specifics.

So I will pose a synopsis to you (the community):
If one raises a child or children, do they not wish to give them, critical thinking, problem solving skills, self reliance, a keen sense of self worth and fundamentally raise them to be independent of the parental unit?
So just for arguments sake if we are all children of a grander design, maybe just maybe we are now on our own and we need to use the aforementioned things given to us, to make ourselves proud.